Unit 6: Comparing Two Populations or Groups. Section 11.2 Comparing Two Means. Unit 6 Comparing Two Populations or Groups. 12.2 Comparing Two Proportions 11.2 Comparing Two Means. Section 11.2 Comparing Two Means. Learning Objectives. After this section, you should be able to…
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Comparing Two Means
After this section, you should be able to…
In the previous section, we developed methods for comparing two proportions. What if we want to compare the mean of some quantitative variable for the individuals in Population 1 and Population 2?
Our parameters of interest are the population means µ1and µ2. Once again, the best approach is to take separate random samples from each population and to compare the sample means.
Suppose we want to compare the average effectiveness of two treatments in a completely randomized experiment. In this case, the parameters µ1and µ2are the true mean responses for Treatment 1 and Treatment 2, respectively. We use the mean response in the two groups to make the comparison.
Here’s a table that summarizes these two situations:
To explore the sampling distribution of the difference between two means, let’s start with two Normally distributed populations having known means and standard deviations.
Based on information from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the heights (in inches) of ten-year-old girls follow a Normal distribution N(56.4, 2.7). The heights (in inches) of ten-year-old boys follow a Normal distribution N(55.7, 3.8).
Suppose we take independent SRSs of 12 girls and 8 boys of this age and measure their heights.
The Sampling Distribution of the Difference Between Sample Means
Choose an SRS of size n1from Population 1 with mean µ1and standard deviation σ1 and an independent SRS of size n2from Population 2 with mean µ2and standard deviation σ2.
The two-sample t statistic has approximately a t distribution. We can use technology to determine degrees of freedom OR we can use a conservative approach, using the smaller of n1– 1 and n2– 1 for the degrees of freedom.
Two-Sample tInterval for a Difference Between Means
The Wade Tract Preserve in Georgia is an old-growth forest of longleaf pines that has survived in a relatively undisturbed state for hundreds of years. One question of interest to foresters who study the area is “How do the sizes of longleaf pine trees in the northern and southern halves of the forest compare?” To find out, researchers took random samples of 30 trees from each half and measured the diameter at breast height (DBH) in centimeters. Comparative boxplots of the data and summary statistics from Minitab are shown below. Construct and interpret a 90% confidence interval for the difference in the mean DBH for longleaf pines in the northern and southern halves of the Wade Tract Preserve.
State: Our parameters of interest are µ1 = the true mean DBH of all trees in the southern half of the forest and µ2= the true mean DBH of all trees in the northern half of the forest. We want to estimate the difference µ1 - µ2 at a 90% confidence level.
Plan: We should use a two-sample t interval for µ1 – µ2if the conditions are satisfied.
Do: Since the conditions are satisfied, we can construct a two-sample t interval for the difference µ1 – µ2. We’ll use the conservative df = 30-1 = 29.
Conclude: We are 90% confident that the interval from 3.83 to 17.83 centimeters captures the difference in the actual mean DBH of the southern trees and the actual mean DBH of the northern trees. This interval suggests that the mean diameter of the southern trees is between 3.83 and 17.83 cm larger than the mean diameter of the northern trees.
In this section, we learned that…
where t* is the critical value for confidence level C for the t distribution with degrees of freedom from either technology or the conservative approach.
Chapter 11, #’s 40c, 41b, 42b, 47c